Apple vs Epic continues. Image source: Epic Games
The battle between Apple and Epic Games goes on as Judge Gonzalez Rogers finds Apple in violation of an injunction, which may result in Apple being charged with contempt by federal prosecutors.
The Epic vs Apple trial began as a result of Epic Games deliberately violating App Store rules in order to create a marketing campaign against Apple. The results had Apple win on every aspect except one — anti-steering.
Apple was ordered via a 2021 injunction to remove anti-steering barriers for third-party businesses, but Apple’s App Store changes didn’t satisfy Epic Games. A complaint was filed in March, which resulted in a very critical ruling on April 30 from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple has been found in willful violation of the injunction and must cease charging a commission on all purchases made outside of the App Store. The company may also face criminal contempt charges as the Judge referred the case to federal prosecutors.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers explained Apple’s violation in detail.
“It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive,” the Judge wrote in her ruling. “That it thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation.”
Apple’s response to the injunction was two-pronged — offer a complicated external linking solution and still charge a 27% commission. These requirements made the injunction virtually useless as no major businesses took advantage of the seemingly obtuse system.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is taking victory laps on social media, stating that Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store “next week” if Apple responds to a peace proposal. All Apple would seemingly have to do is eliminate commissions on external purchases worldwide, not just in the United States.
If Apple does this, iOS gets Fortnite and Epic will drop litigation on the topic. Sweeney obviously sees this as a win-win.
It isn’t clear how Apple will respond. The issues with Apple’s compliance with the injunction arose in the first place due to a fear of lost revenue.
Apple CEO Tim Cook and former CFO Luca Maestri agreed that they should pursue commissions on external purchases. That decision was made in spite of App Store head Phil Schiller‘s concerns about it being a violation of the injunction.
If Tim Sweeney follows through on the peace offering, it would mean an end to the years of litigation. However, there doesn’t seem to be any real benefit for Apple to do so, and the company isn’t afraid to return to court.
Apple hasn’t made a public response as of this publication.
